Hi Kuba,
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 31.08.2016 o 20:36, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
>
> I wonder: would 'git cherry-pick --continue' be able to finish
> 'git revert', and vice versa, then? Or 'git sequencer --continue'?
I just tested this, via
diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
index 96c7640..085d8bc 100755
--- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
+++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ test_expect_success 'cherry-pick
mid-cherry-pick-sequence' '
git checkout HEAD foo &&
git cherry-pick base &&
git cherry-pick picked &&
- git cherry-pick --continue &&
+ git revert --continue &&
git diff --exit-code anotherpick
(Danger! Whitespace corrupted!!!)
It appears that this passes now.
Probably `git sequencer --continue` would work, too, if there was a `git
sequencer`. :0)
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> >> W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:04, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
>
> >>> diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> >>> b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> >>> index 7b7a89d..6465edf 100755
> >>> --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> >>> +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
> >>> @@ -459,17 +459,6 @@ test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 1' '
> >>> test_expect_code 128 git cherry-pick --continue
> >>> '
> >>>
> >>> -test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 2' '
> >>
> >> Hmmm... the description is somewhat lacking (especially compared to
> >> the rest of test), anyway.
> >>
> >> BTW. we should probably rename 'malformed instruction sheet 2'
> >> to 'malformed instruction sheet' if there are no further such
> >> tests after this removal, isn't it?
> >
> > No, we cannot rename it after this patch because the patch removes it ;-)
> > (It is not a file name but really a label for a test case.)
>
> Ooops. What I wanted to say that after removing the test case named
> 'malformed instruction sheet 2' we should also rename *earlier* test
> case from 'malformed instruction sheet 1' to 'malformed instruction sheet',
> as it is now the only 'malformed instruction sheet *' test case.
Actually, you know, I completely missed the fact that there was a
"malformed instruction sheet 3". I renumbered it.
Thanks,
Dscho
